“Let the states decide.”

[Copernicus]

I'm not hinting at anything. I'm simply stating facts. You can look them up if you want, or not, doesn't matter to me.

How can I look them up when you don't tell me what criteria you were talking about or provide any citation to a source? At this point, it just appears that you made your comment up and discovered afterwards that you couldn't justify it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Very sad.

Doesn't answer my question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As long as people can travel between states without penalty there is no loss of individual rights.

A collective centralized government is really the major threat to individual rights.

"In the months since Texas outlawed abortion and prohibited adolescents from receiving gender-transition care, women have flooded abortion clinics in nearby states and parents with transgender children have moved to places where puberty blockers and hormone therapy remain legal.

So now, Texas conservatives are testing the limits of their power beyond state lines.

Some cities and counties have passed so-called travel bans aimed at stopping Texans from driving to abortion appointments in other states. Meanwhile, Attorney General Ken Paxton has demanded medical records from at least two out-of-state clinics that provide gender-affirming care to minors.

“This request from the Texas Attorney General is a clear attempt to intimidate providers of gender-affirming care and parents and families seeking that care outside of Texas and other states with bans,” Dr. Izzy Lowell, a Georgia physician who received one such demand letter, said in a statement."

Texas conservatives test how far they can extend abortion and gender-transition restrictions beyond state lines

Recent state and local legal maneuvers signal that Texas’ conservative movement could be wading into a complicated constitutional morass the country hasn’t dealt with since before the Civil War.

www.texastribune.org

So again, a person has rights over their own body in one state, but not in another.
A person can be a free person in one state, but a slave in another.

And you think this is how rights should work?

 

[Kathryn]

Doesn't answer my question.

I don't think you meant for me to answer that non question.

 

[Kathryn]

How can I look them up when you don't tell me what criteria you were talking about or provide any citation to a source? At this point, it just appears that you made your comment up and discovered afterwards that you couldn't justify it.

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other what you do or don't do. I am not going to look up something you can easily look up yourself, especially days after I posted it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Men are more concerned with the larger issues that impact people of all ages and walks of life. They do not fixate on just their own self serving special interest group; women and abortion. Lefty women are the most selfish. Men are more concerned with inflation, crime, illegal immigration that impact everyone. Men, as husband and fathers have had to worry about the bigger picture, for eons, and never had as much free time or ride for self indulgence loopholes.

Say abortion was legal, but treated like the right to own guns. In this scenario women can have an abortion, but do not get a free ride. Rather they have to pay for their own, just like with gun ownership. Say there is also inflation on abortion services, like there is now on energy, food and housing, and the price of an abortion increases by 25%. Would women worry about inflation? Or would they expect a government free ride to take up that slack? Like guns, a women could have the right to have an abortion, but have to pay. This would still a right. Free ride abortion is not a right, anymore than it is for gun ownership.

I would prefer we treat abortion like cosmetic surgery. A woman may not need a nose job, for health reasons. However, if she believes it can make her feel better about herself, and she is willing to save, since it may not not be covered by insurance or government handouts, let her, pursue her happiness. Having abortion, go back to the states, with not all states offering this service, is actually leading to this more free market solution; medical tourism. This will not be a free ride, but still can be worth the expense, like the nose job, if it is that important. While the extra effort, will decrease future abortions, while leaving the option open.

Gun owners have the right to own guns, but they not only have to buy their own guns and ammo, but depending on the state, they also have jump through more or less hoops. Too many Liberal women think they deserve a free ride and no hoops. How about we do that with guns? Would that free ride approach with no hoops, make the gun problem worse or better? The same is true of abortion.

Conservative women need reproductive healthcare too. And they get abortions too.

But thanks for talking about us women like we're a bunch of superficial selfish children unable to make decisions about our own bodies and lives.
Gotta love that Fox News attitude!

 

[Twilight Hue]

"In the months since Texas outlawed abortion and prohibited adolescents from receiving gender-transition care, women have flooded abortion clinics in nearby states and parents with transgender children have moved to places where puberty blockers and hormone therapy remain legal.

So now, Texas conservatives are testing the limits of their power beyond state lines.

Some cities and counties have passed so-called travel bans aimed at stopping Texans from driving to abortion appointments in other states. Meanwhile, Attorney General Ken Paxton has demanded medical records from at least two out-of-state clinics that provide gender-affirming care to minors.

“This request from the Texas Attorney General is a clear attempt to intimidate providers of gender-affirming care and parents and families seeking that care outside of Texas and other states with bans,” Dr. Izzy Lowell, a Georgia physician who received one such demand letter, said in a statement."

Texas conservatives test how far they can extend abortion and gender-transition restrictions beyond state lines

Recent state and local legal maneuvers signal that Texas’ conservative movement could be wading into a complicated constitutional morass the country hasn’t dealt with since before the Civil War.

www.texastribune.org

So again, a person has rights over their own body in one state, but not in another.
A person can be a free person in one state, but a slave in another.

And you think this is how rights should work?

Like I said before it's a complete states rights matter and rest assured if most of the people want their governor to make rules like that then that is their prerogative.

In the case of Texas it's called abortion trafficking. It's meant to prevent minors from traveling across state lines without their parents consent so it's not really a ban it's just to prevent minors from getting the procedure without their knowledge and also provides penalties for any adult who helps those children who are not their parents or lawful Guardian.

From my understanding it does not forbid adults from traveling out of state for abortions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think you meant for me to answer that non question.

I wanted an answer. As I always do when I ask a question (that you never answer.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like I said before it's a complete states rights matter and rest assured if most of the people want their governor to make rules like that then that is their prerogative.

Okay, so you're fine with someone being a free person in one state, and then being a slave in another state.
That's messed up.

But you also believe you have some ultimate right to obtain plastic bags at grocery stores in New York. Those are the kinds of "freedoms" you're concerned with. Who needs ultimate bodily autonomy. It should totally depend on your geographical location.

In the case of Texas it's called abortion trafficking. It's meant to prevent minors from traveling across state lines without their parents consent so it's not really a ban it's just to prevent minors from getting the procedure without their knowledge and also provides penalties for any adult who helps those children who are not their parents or lawful Guardian.

From my understanding it does not forbid adults from traveling out of state for abortions.

Where did you get this from?

 

[Kathryn]

Please point out where and how then.

How is "mind your own business and make your own choices about your own body and let people worry about their bodies" judgy and preachy?

It just sounds like you're projecting, to me.

This is judgy and preachy, imo.
See, that's how you do it.

Ok days and days later I will answer this "question." Which is couched in a very sarcastic manner, I might add.

it boils down to when a person decides a fetus is another person. Personally, I believe it becomes a person as soon as a heart beat can be found but that's just me.

Speaking of heart beats, I clearly recall going to the doctor when I was about 12 weeks pregnant and hearing a heartbeat! I was actually a month more pregnant than I thought I was so it was loud and clear. I remember being so in awe, I thought I was only about 8 weeks pregnant and was not expecting that for sure.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like I said before it's a complete states rights matter and rest assured if most of the people want their governor to make rules like that then that is their prerogative.

In the case of Texas it's called abortion trafficking. It's meant to prevent minors from traveling across state lines without their parents consent so it's not really a ban it's just to prevent minors from getting the procedure without their knowledge and also provides penalties for any adult who helps those children who are not their parents or lawful Guardian.

From my understanding it does not forbid adults from traveling out of state for abortions.

"Lubbock County, Texas, is now the fourth and largest county in the state to pass an anti-abortion ordinance that would bar pregnant Texans from traveling to access an out-of-state abortion.

Lubbock now joins three other Texas counties—Goliad, Mitchell and Cochran—that have passed similar anti-abortion travel ordinances.

Texas has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. Many Texans are forced to travel out of state—or even out of country—to access an abortion; it is estimated that Texans seeking an abortion have to travel an average of 240 miles each way to access care.

Abortion travel bans are enforced through private civil lawsuits filed against people who “knowingly transport any individual for the purpose of providing or obtaining an elective abortion, regardless of where the elective abortion will occur.” While the pregnant people themselves do not face legal liability, people who help them obtain an abortion could face a civil lawsuit for doing so. Anti-abortion activists have dubbed these ordinances anti-“abortion trafficking” laws.

These ordinances were drafted by ant-abortion extremist Mark Lee Dickson and former solicitor general of Texas Jonathan F. Mitchell, the architect of Texas’s “bounty hunter” abortion ban who recently demanded patient information from several Texas abortion funds. Attorney Lisa Needham has written that “Mitchell is much more than the man who helped make it legal for anti-choicers to moonlight as bounty hunters … If a culture war is going on, Mitchell is in the thick of it, representing people who used to be relegated to the legal fringes, but are now engaged in a concerted effort to move the law much further to the right.”

Dickson has also spent the last year lobbying for the passage of anti-abortion travel ordinances across the state. “Guys, I long for the day [when], coast to coast, abortion is considered a great moral, social and political wrong and is outlawed in every single state,” Dickson told the Lubbock commission.

On Tuesday, the Texas city of Amarillo, in Potter and Randall counties, held a long public hearing to consider a similar abortion travel ban that would apply to roads that lead to New Mexico and Colorado, abortion safe haven states that have seen a large uptick in patients from Texas over the past year. The Amarillo city council decided not to immediately vote on the ordinance. “These abortion trafficking ordinances really are the next stage in an abortion-free America,” said Dickson, who also made an appearance at the hearing."

Four Texas Counties Now Ban Travel for Abortions

The travel ban bars pregnant Texans from leaving the state to access an abortion. From Truthout's Zane McNeil.

www.texasobserver.org

"AMARILLO — The Amarillo City Council prolonged its debate over a so-called abortion travel ban on Tuesday, spending more than two hours in front of a packed room reviewing draft rules that would attempt to block access to Colorado and New Mexico, two states where a Texas woman could legally obtain an abortion.

The five-member council discussed three different drafts of the ordinance, with varying measures in each, and left the table without resolution. Abortion rights activists and legal scholars have sharply criticized the ordinances, calling the rules unconstitutional.

The meeting offered a rare window into how a local government wades into one of America's thorniest and most politically charged issues. The council — which includes no women — governs a city of more than 200,000 people and has bucked the trend of other smaller, rural cities and counties that passed similar ordinances with little debate.

The Amarillo council has now spent three different meetings grappling with whether to approve the rules that were first proposed by anti-abortion activists. The Panhandle city has been a hot spot for the debate, as Interstates 40 and 27 run through the city."

Amarillo City Council says it needs more time to debate abortion travel ban

After weeks of debate, the council took no action at a politically-charged meeting Tuesday. It is the largest city in Texas to debate an ordinance that would outlaw travel on its roadways to get an abortion.

www.texastribune.org

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok days and days later I will answer this "question." Which is couched in a very sarcastic manner, I might add.

Yes, I know. Thank you for detecting it.

it boils down to when a person decides a fetus is another person. Personally, I believe it becomes a person as soon as a heart beat can be found but that's just me.

Here was the question:

How is "mind your own business and make your own choices about your own body and let people worry about their bodies" judgy and preachy?

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, I know. Thank you for detecting it.

Here was the question:

How is "mind your own business and make your own choices about your own body and let people worry about their bodies" judgy and preachy?

I answered the question biut not to your satisfaction I guess. Oh well.

 

[Copernicus]

Here was the question:
How is "mind your own business and make your own choices about your own body and let people worry about their bodies" judgy and preachy?

I answered the question biut not to your satisfaction I guess. Oh well.

Just another evasive attempt to answer a question with a non-answer. Taking away choice is judgy, and lecturing people about when personhood begins is preachy.

 

[Kathryn]

Just another evasive attempt to answer a question with a non-answer.

Nope. Just not the answer you wanted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I answered the question biut not to your satisfaction I guess. Oh well.

Your evasive response seems to highlight my point about people making their own decisions for themselves.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just another evasive attempt to answer a question with a non-answer. Taking away choice is judgy, and lecturing people about when personhood begins is preachy.

Yep

 

[Kathryn]

Your evasive response seems to highlight my point about people making their own decisions for themselves.

It's not evasive. It truly does depend on when a person defines when a person IS a person.

 

[Kathryn]

Just another evasive attempt to answer a question with a non-answer. Taking away choice is judgy, and lecturing people about when personhood begins is preachy.

Which is why I am not lecturing anyone.

 

[an anarchist]

It truly does depend on when a person defines when a person IS a person

I’m sort of jumping in hundred of replies deep, so help me out here please.

You are referring to whether someone deems a fetus a person, correct?

I think some people agree that a fetus is a person yet they support abortion. Not all pro choicers agree that a fetus is a person, but I do. But it doesn’t mean we should ban abortion. So I think it would be possible to move on from the point “is a fetus a person” and go from there on the topic.